PEOPLE VS SEQUIO

FACTS
Accused-appellants Ermelito Sequio, Vicente Tumangan and Nenito Melvida appeal from the
decision of 24 February 1994 (promulgated on 1 March 1994) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Cebu City, Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. CBU-22486, finding them guilty of the crime of
robbery with homicide as charged in an information.
on April 24, 1991, Eugenio Godinez, overseer since 1952 of Hacienda Jose Ancajas
in Medellin, Cebu, and Pedro Broniola, the haciendas bookkeeper, went to the Medellin Rural
Bank, located three kilometers from the hacienda, to withdraw P50,557.17 to pay for the wages of
the hacienda workers. The banks cashier instructed Jimmy Serafin, janitor and motorcycle driver
of the bank, to drive Godinez and Broniola back to the hacienda on one of the banks
motorcycles. Serafin drove the motorcycle with Godinez behind him and Broniola behind
Godinez. Godinez carried the money in a money bag which he hung over his left shoulder.[5]
As the three were nearing the hacienda, the accused, armed with guns, block their path and ordered
them to stop. Godinez recognized the armed men because Nenito Melvida and Emerlindo Sequio
used to work in the hacienda while Vicente Tumangans parents were Godinezs neighbors.[6]
Serafin drove on, but as the motorcycle went past the accused, he and Godinez heard a
gunshot.[7] Godinez noticed that Broniola had fallen off the motorcycle. Serafin leapt from the
motorcycle and ran away. The motorcycle toppled over Godinez, pinning him to the
ground. Accused Tumangan, with gun in hand, approached Godinex, took the money from the
money bag, and fled. Godinez ran home, leaving Broniola behind.[8] Meanwhile, Serafin had
proceeded to the house of the Broniolas which was near the crime scene, and informed Broniolas
wife of the incident.[9]
SPO Elpidio Luna, received a report from another policeman about a robbery. Together with other
policemen and some Cafgus, Luna went to the crime scene he found an abandoned
motorcycle. People around the site informed Luna that the culprit had already fled. Luna noticed
that the bushes were compressed and found a piece of paper utilized as toilet paper with a stool on
it [which] was somewhat newly delivered. The paper was a bio-data sheetwith the name Melvida,
Nenito and the entry for the fathers name filled in with Elpidio Melvida.
One bystander volunteered to take Luna to Elpidio Melvidas house where, however, Elpidio told
Luna that Nenito Melvida was not there but was at his (Nenitos) brothers house. Elpidio took Luna
to the said house where Luna saw the accused Nenito Melvida playing cards with other
persons. Luna asked Melvida to go with him to the barangay captains house.
The barangay captain was not home, so Luna took Melvida to the police station instead. Melvida
was kept at the station the whole evening of 24 April 1991 for investigation conducted, first, by
Luna, then, by his fellow policemen Sgt. Pablo Ygot, Cpl. Alfredo Mondigo and Eliseo Tepait, as
Luna had to take his supper. Melvida was allowed to go home the next day, but only after the
police had filed criminal charges against him and he had posted bail. Melvida was not assisted by
counsel during the police investigation, although Luna assured the trial judge that the Municipal
Mayor of Medellin, who is a lawyer, was present, While Luna claimed he asked the Mayor to act
as Melvidas counsel, he admitted that his request did not appear in the record of the
investigation. Lunas investigation of Melvida was not reduced into writing.[13]
In the course of Lunas investigation, Melvida admitted that he kept his share the loot in his
house. Melvida then was brought to his house where he got P9,000.00, in one hundred peso bills,
placed inside a shoe which he delivered to the policemen.[14]
During the investigation, Melvida admitted that his (Melvidas) companions during the robbery
were Vicente Tumangan and Ermelindo Sequio, who were staying in the house of Juanito
Hones. Immediately, Mondigo and policeman Proniely Artiquela proceeded to the house of Hones
where they saw Tumangan and Sequio on the porch. Noticing something bulging on the waist of
Tumangan, Mondigo and Artiquela approached Tumangan and asked him what was that bulging
at his waist. Tumangan did not answer. So, Mondigo patted the bulge which turned out to be a .38
caliber Squires Bingham revolver with holster and four bullets.[16] When asked if he had a license
for the firearm, Tumangan answered in the negative. Mondigo and Artiquela then brought
Tumangan and Sequio to the police station. Tumangan was then investigated in the presence of
the Municipal mayor. Tumangan admitted that he was one of the holdupppers.[17]
ISSUE:
Fourth assignment of error is when it failed to consider the non-observance of the constitution in
the investigation with the accused by the police, as when the court says the court, however, must
express its dismay over the questionable methods by the police officers concerned mocked the
constitution, which they themselves have sworn to honor and revere, when they did not remind the
accused of their right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel
RULING
What was recovered from accused Melvida was P9,000.00 which, he admitted, was his share of
the loot.[41] As to the difference between P22,526.00 and P9,000.00, no evidence was adduced how
and from whom it was recovered. Police officer Mariano Remulta merely declared that
the P26,526.00 was entrusted to him by the station commander who told him that the amount was
recovered in connection with the highway robbery case.[42]
Since the recovery of P9,000.00 from Melvida was due to his admission in the course of the
custodial interrogation made in violation of paragraph (1) of Section 12, Article III of the
Constitution and thus inadmissible in evidence pursuant to paragraph (3) of the said section then
the P9,000.00 cannot also be admitted in evidence as a fruit of the poisonous tree.The rule is settled
that once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained -- as the
admission of Melvida in this case -- any secondary or derivative evidence (the fruit) derived from
it - - the P9,000.00 obtained from Melvida as a consequence of his admission - - is also
inadmissible.
The statement of the trial court may, be considered mere surplusage since, in the final analysis, it
did not take into account against the accused whatever admission they made during police
interrogation. We need to elaborate, however, why such admissions are inadmissible in evidence.
Regardless of Lunas claim to the contrary, accused Nenito Melvida was arrested. An arrest is the
taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an
offense,and it is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to
the custody of the person making the arrest. Melvidas voluntarily going with Luna upon invitation
was a submission to Lunas custody, and Luna believed that Melvida was a suspect in the robbery
charged herein, hence, Melvida was being held to answer for the commission of the said offense.
Since he was arrested without a warrant, the inquiry must now be whether a valid warrantless arrest
was effected. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful . -- A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
The first and last conditions enumerated above are not applicable in this case; and under the facts
herein, neither does the second condition apply. Lunas basis for arresting Melvida was the bio-
data sheet with Melvidas name on it found at the crime scene. By no means can this indicate that
Melvida committed the offense charged. It does not even connote that Melvida was at the crime
scene for the bio-data sheet could have been obtained by anyone and left at the crime scene long
before or after the crime was committed. Luna, thus, had no personal knowledge of facts indicating
Melvidas guilt; at best, he had an unreasonable suspicion. Melvidas arrest was thus illegal.
After his unlawful arrest, Melvida underwent custodial investigation. The custodial investigation
commenced when the police pinpointed Melvida as one of the authors of the crime or had focused
on him as a suspect thereof.[46] This brought into operation paragraph (1) of Section 12, Article III
of the Constitution guaranteeing the accuseds rights to remain silent and to counsel. And his right
to be informed of these rights.[47] The said paragraph provides:
SEC. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
There was no showing that Melvida was ever informed of these rights, and Luna admitted that
Melvida was not assigned by counsel during the investigation. Indisputably, the police officers
concerned flouted these constitutional rights of Melvida and Tumangan and deliberately
disregarded the rule regarding an investigators duties prior to and during custodial interrogation
laid down in Morales vs. Enrile[48] and reiterated in a catena of subsequent cases.
PEOPLE VS CHAVEZ
FACTS
In the information dated November 8, 2006, Mark Jason Chavez y Bitancor (Chavez) was charged
with the crime of robbery with homicide:
That on or about October 28, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and means of force, violence
and intimidation upon the person of ELMER DUQUE y OROS, by then and there, with intent to
kill, stabbing the latter repeatedly with a kitchen knife, thereby inflicting upon him mortal stab
wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter, and on the saidoccasion
or by reason thereof, accused took, robbed and carried away the following:
One (1) Unit Nokia Cellphone; One (1) Unit Motorola Cellphone; Six (6) pcs. Ladies Ring; Two
(2) pcs. Necklace; One (1) pc. Bracelet All of undetermined value and undetermined amount of
money, all belonging to said ELMER DUQUE y OROS @ BARBIE to the damage and prejudice
of the said owner/or his heirs, in the said undetermined amount in Philippines currency.
On October 28, 2006, Peñamante arrived home at around 2:45 a.m., coming from work.When he
was about to go inside his house at 1326 Tuazon Street, Sampaloc, Manila, he saw a person
wearing a black, long-sleeved shirt and black pants and holding something while leaving the
house/parlor of Elmer Duque (Barbie).
There was a light at the left side of the house/parlor of Barbie, his favorite haircutter, so Peñamante
stated that he was able to see the face of Chavez and the clothes he was wearing.6
Sometime after 10:00 a.m., the Scene of the Crime Office (SOCO) team arrived, led by PCI Cayrel.
The team noted that the lobby and the parlor were in disarray, and they found Barbie’s dead body
inside.12 They took photographs and collected fingerprints and other pieces of evidence such as
the 155 pieces of hair strands found clutched in Barbie’s left hand.
At around 11:00 a.m., Peñamante’s landlady woke him up and told him that Barbie was found
dead at 9:00 a.m. He then informed his landlady that he saw Chavez leaving Barbie’s house at 2:45
a.m.15
Dr. Salen conducted an autopsy on the body and found that the time of death was approximately
12 hours prior to examination.16 There were 22 injuries on Barbie’s body — 21 were stab wounds
in various parts of the body caused by a sharp bladed instrument, and one incised wound was
caused by a sharp object.17 Four (4) of the stab wounds were considered fatal.18
The next day, the police invited Peñamante to the Manila Police Station to give a statement.
Peñamante described to SPO3 Casimiro the physical appearance of the person he saw leaving
Barbie’s parlor.19
Accompanied by his mother, Chavez voluntarily surrendered to SPO3 Casimiro at the police
station.20 Chavez was then 22 years old.21 His mother told the police that she wanted to help her
son who might be involved in Barbie’s death.
SPO3 Casimiro informed them ofthe consequences in executing a written statement without the
assistance of a lawyer. However, Chavez’s mother still gave her statement, subscribed by
Administrative Officer Alex Francisco.23She also surrendered two cellular phones owned by
Barbie and a baseball cap owned by Chavez.24
The next day, Peñamante was again summoned by SPO3 Casimiro to identify from a line-up the
person he saw leaving Barbie’s house/parlor that early morning of October 28, 2006.25 Peñamante
immediately pointed to and identified Chavez and thereafter executed his written
statement.26 There were no issues raised in relation to the line-up.
On the other hand, Chavez explained that he was athome on October 27, 2006, exchanging text
messages withBarbie on whether they could talk regarding their misunderstanding.27 According to
Chavez, Barbie suspected that he was having a relationship with Barbie’s boyfriend, Maki.28 When
Barbie did not reply to his text message, Chavez decided to go to Barbie’s house at around 1:00
a.m. of October 28, 2006.29 Barbie allowed him to enter the house, and he went home after.
RULING
There is a disputable presumption that "a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing
of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, thatthing which a
person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him."74 Thus, when a person
has possession of a stolen property, hecan be disputably presumed as the author of the theft.75
Barbie’s missing cellular phones were turned over to the police by Chavez’s mother, and this was
never denied by the defense.Chavez failed to explain his possession of these cellular phones.The
Court of Appeals discussed that "a cellular phone has become a necessary accessory, no person
would part with the same for a long period of time, especially in this case as it involves an
expensive cellular phone unit, as testified by Barbie’s kababayan, witness Raymond Seno[f]a."78
However, with Chavez and Barbie’s close relationship having been established, there is still a
possibilitythat these cellphones were lent to Chavez by Barbie.
The integrity of these cellphones was also compromised when SPO3 Casimiro testified during
cross-examination that the police made no markings on the cellphones, and their SIM cards were
removed.
The other missing items were no longer found, and no evidence was presented to conclude that
these weretaken by Chavez. The statement of Chavez’s mother mentioned that her son pawned
one of Barbie’s necklaces is mere hearsay.
It is contrary to human nature for a mother to voluntarily surrender her own son and confess that
her son committed a heinous crime.
Chavez was 22 years old, no longer a minor, when he voluntarily went to the police station on
November 5, 2006 for investigation,83 and his mother accompanied him. SPO3 Casimiro testified
that the reason she surrendered Chavez was because "she wanted to help her son"84 and "perhaps
the accused felt that [the investigating police] are getting nearer to him.
Chavez’s mother "turned-over (2) units of Cellular-phones and averred that her son Mark Jason
told her that said cellphones belong[ed] to victim Barbie. . . [that] NOY was wounded in the
incident and that the fatal weapon was put in a manhole infront[sic] of their residence."87 The
records are silent on whether Chavez objected to his mother’s statements. The records also do not
show why the police proceeded to get his mother’s testimony as opposed to getting Chavez’s
testimony on his voluntary surrender.
At most, the lower court found thatChavez’s mother was informed by the investigating officer at
the police station of the consequences in executing a written statement withoutthe assistance of a
lawyer.88 She proceeded to give her statement dated November 7, 2006 on her son’s confession of
the crime despite the warning.
The booking sheet and arrest report states that "when [the accused was] appraised [sic] of his
constitutional rights and nature of charges imputed against him, accused opted to remain
silent."91 This booking sheet and arrest report is also dated November 7, 2006, or two days after
Chavez, accompanied by his mother, had voluntarily gone to the police station.
The right to counsel upon being questioned for the commission of a crime is part of the Miranda
rights, which require that:
. . . (a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent; (b) anything he says
can and will be used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the right totalk to an attorney before
being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he cannot
afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires.92
The Miranda rightswere incorporated in our Constitution but were modified to include the
statement thatany waiver of the right to counsel must be made "in writing and in the presence of
counsel."93
The invocation of these rights applies during custodial investigation, which begins "when the
police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun tofocus
on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds
questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements."94
It may appear that the Miranda rightsonly apply when one is "taken into custody by the police,"
such as during an arrest. These rights are intended to protect ordinary citizens from the pressures
of a custodial setting:
The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are to ensure that the police do not coerce
or trick captive suspects into confessing, to relieve the "inherently compelling pressures"
"generated by the custodial setting itself," "which work to undermine the individual’s will to
resist," and as much as possible to free courts from the task of scrutinizing individual cases to try
to determine, after the fact, whether particular confessions were voluntary. Those purposes are
implicated as much by in-custody questioning of persons suspected of misdemeanours as they are
by questioning of persons suspected of felonies.95 (Emphasis supplied)
Republic Act No. 743896 expanded the definition of custodial investigation to "include the practice
ofissuing an ‘invitation’ to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the ‘inviting’ officer for any
violation of law."97
This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be apprised
of their Miranda rights. For one, the same pressures of a custodial setting exist in this scenario.
Chavez is also being questioned by an investigating officer ina police station. As an additional
pressure, he may have been compelled to surrender by his mother who accompanied him to the
police station.
This court, thus, finds that the circumstantial evidence sufficiently proves beyond reasonable doubt
that Chavez is guilty of the crime of homicide, and not the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
Finally, this court laments thatobject evidence retrieved from the scene of the crime were not
properly handled, and no results coming from the forensic examinations were presented to the
court. There was no examination of the fingerprints found on the kitchen knife retrieved from the
manhole near the house of Chavez.100 There were no results of the DNA examination done on the
hair strands found with the knife and those in the clutches of the victim. Neither was there a
comparison made between these strands of hair and Chavez’s. There was no report regarding any
finding of traces of blood on the kitchen knife recovered, and no matching with the blood of the
victim or Chavez’s. The results of this case would have been rendered with more confidence at the
trial court level had all these been done. In many cases, eyewitness testimony may not be as reliable
— or would have been belied — had object evidence been properly handled and presented.
We deal with the life of a personhere. Everyone’s life — whether it be the victim’s or the accused’s
— is valuable. The Constitution and our laws hold these lives in high esteem. Therefore,
investigations such as these should have been attended with greaterprofessionalism and more
dedicated attention to detail by our law enforcers. The quality of every conviction depends on the
evidence gathered, analyzed, and presented before the courts. The public’s confidence on our
criminal justice system depends on the quality of the convictions we promulgate against the
accused. All those who participate in our criminal justice system should realize this and take this
to heart.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Mark Jason
Chavez y Bitancor alias "Noy" is hereby declared GUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt of the
separate and distinct crime of HOMICIDE. Inasmuch as the commission of the crime was not
attended by any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, accused-appellant Chavez is hereby
SENTENCEDto suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum